U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[bush_cheney2004]

I judge the candidates by their own merits, so what Guilliani's dad did has no bearing on my opinion of him. And yes, we do know about Clinton's years in the White House-- peace and prosperity-- so yeah, I do want more of that. Wouldn't you?

Peace and prosperity? Not for Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, or Serbia, and many US embassies and domestic buildings. We sure want more of that...LOL!

[Guest American Woman]

Peace and prosperity? Not for Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, or Serbia, and many US embassies and domestic buildings. We sure want more of that...LOL!

I sure want more of it-- especially as opposed to what we're getting now. Furthermore, I'm sure the majority of Americans would agree with me. I'm sure the majority of the rest of the world would agree with me too.

I'm not sure why, but apparently an LOL is due here, so... L.O.L.

irony at it's best-- and a little bit eerily prophetic too

Edited November 4, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I sure want more of it-- especially as opposed to what we're getting now. Furthermore, I'm sure the majority of Americans would agree with me. I'm sure the majority of the rest of the world would agree with me too.

I'm not sure why, but apparently an LOL is due here, so... L.O.L.

Sure..we need to get back to that time of peace and prosperity when dropping bombs and cruise missiles on people was a fashionable distraction from demestic turmoil (e.g. impeachment).

The world applauded!

[Guest American Woman]

Poor bitter Bush_Cheney. And by that, I mean you and the real ones.

[bush_cheney2004]

Poor bitter Bush_Cheney. And by that, I mean you and the real ones.

Of course, personal attacks are your specialty! But I assure you, I am not "Poor".

[Guest American Woman]

Of course, personal attacks are your specialty! But I assure you, I am not "Poor".

Kinda defensive there, aren't 'cha big fella?

[bush_cheney2004]

Kinda defensive there, aren't 'cha big fella?

Only holding you to your own "standard"....being so quick to squeal like a stuck pig.

[Guest American Woman]

My, my. Defensive AND paranoid.

Have a good day, BC. And enjoy the next year. One year to the day, Republicans lose power -- and America goes back to the people.

Edited November 4, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

My, my. Defensive AND paranoid.

Have a good day, BC. And enjoy the next year. One year to the day, Republicans lose power -- and America goes back to the people.

Why didn't you just skip this diversion altogether? I'm not here to trade personal insults or pleasantries either way. Power is power no matter which party has it...the bombs and cruise missile don't know the difference.

[Higgly]

My, my. Defensive AND paranoid.

Have a good day, BC. And enjoy the next year. One year to the day, Republicans lose power -- and America goes back to the people.

Maybe we'll see the emergence of a new member on MLW

[Guest coot]

Sure..we need to get back to that time of peace and prosperity when dropping bombs and cruise missiles on people was a fashionable distraction from demestic turmoil (e.g. impeachment).

Yes, bombing an al Qaeda training camp was a "distraction." It's incredible how obsessed Republicans were with Clinton's sex life that even national security took a backseat to spinning the Lewinsky scandal.

Edited November 5, 2007 by coot

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, bombing an al Qaeda training camp was a "distraction." It's incredible how obsessed Republicans were with Clinton's sex life that even national security took a backseat to spinning the Lewinsky scandal.

Yes, that pharma plant in Sudan was making killer aspirin. LOL!

[Guest coot]

You can try to rewrite history to right Republican embarrasments, but the "Wag the Dog" chatter was in response to a direct hit on bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can try to rewrite history to right Republican embarrasments, but the "Wag the Dog" chatter was in response to a direct hit on bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden wasn't home....Clinton just as successful as Bush in that regard.

There are no "Democrat" embarrassments? Get real.....

[Guest coot]

There are no "Democrat" embarrassments? Get real.....

I don't beleive I implied there were not. I was just pointing out a Republican embarrassment that weakens their claim to be the "national security" party.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't beleive I implied there were not. I was just pointing out a Republican embarrassment that weakens their claim to be the "national security" party.

But their claim is not weakened....Bush proved that again in 2004, and the latest Congress tiptoes around any implied weakness compared to the former Republican controlled Congress. That't why appropriations are still going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats know they are toast if they sound like George McGovern...again.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure..we need to get back to that time of peace and prosperity when dropping bombs and cruise missiles on people was a fashionable distraction from demestic turmoil (e.g. impeachment).

Yes, bombing an al Qaeda training camp was a "distraction." It's incredible how obsessed Republicans were with Clinton's sex life that even national security took a backseat to spinning the Lewinsky scandal.

It is truly, unbelievably incredible. The impeachement, which was not backed by over 80% of the American public, was first and foremost on the Republicans' minds. If they would have put even half as much effort into dealing with national security, it would be interesting to see how different things may have been. But instead, when Clinton was trying to deal with it, they claimed it was nothing more than a diversion. Then incredibly, as you pointed out, they claim to be "the national security party."

These past eight years under the Bush administration have been unbelievable. That people are still defending Bush (at least they're in the small minority, so thank God for that) is unbelievable. That the Democrats have remained so spineless through all of it is unbelievable. It's difficult to say what lasting effects all of this will have on our country.

Edited November 5, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Another one of those sites that select a candidate that best irrors your opinions to hot button issues....

http://glassbooth.org/gbapp/index.php/Topic

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, bombing an al Qaeda training camp was a "distraction." It's incredible how obsessed Republicans were with Clinton's sex life that even national security took a backseat to spinning the Lewinsky scandal.

Doesn't really matter, as President Clinton had a reponsibility long before not having sex with interns or lying in federal court. The country and its interests were bombed at will.

It is truly, unbelievably incredible. The impeachement, which was not backed by over 80% of the American public, was first and foremost on the Republicans' minds. If they would have put even half as much effort into dealing with national security, it would be interesting to see how different things may have been. But instead, when Clinton was trying to deal with it, they claimed it was nothing more than a diversion. Then incredibly, as you pointed out, they claim to be "the national security party."

More excuses....Clinton had a responsibility to execute the duties of his office, regardless of having his teats in a wringer.

These past eight years under the Bush administration have been unbelievable. That people are still defending Bush (at least they're in the small minority, so thank God for that) is unbelievable. That the Democrats have remained so spineless through all of it is unbelievable. It's difficult to say what lasting effects all of this will have on our country.

The lasting effects are that America is the same as it ever was, instead of being a pinata for Al Qaeda as before.

[Guest coot]

More excuses....Clinton had a responsibility to execute the duties of his office, regardless of having his teats in a wringer.

Clinton exercised his duties of office by attacking al Qaeda training camps and you called that a "distraction" from the more important issue of his sex life. You can't have it both ways.

[bush_cheney2004]

Clinton exercised his duties of office by attacking al Qaeda training camps and you called that a "distraction" from the more important issue of his sex life. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not having it both ways...but President Clinton sure did. Not only did he downsize American force structure and decimate morale, he left the unfinished state of terrorism affairs for President Bush to clean up with a much smaller military. But alas, we now what what Mr. Clinton's priorities were.

[Guest coot]

he left the unfinished state of terrorism affairs for President Bush to clean up with a much smaller military.

While I am far less a fan of Clinton than you are of Bush, it's a well known and documented fact that Bush (or Cheney--whoever is really in charge) completely dropped the ball in terms of anti-terrorism efforts prior to 9/11. Perhaps a completely ignored memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack the U.S." will jog your carefully selected memory.

[Guest coot]

But their claim is not weakened....Bush proved that again in 2004,

Nothing was proven in 2004 that wasn't disproven in 2006.

[bush_cheney2004]

While I am far less a fan of Clinton than you are of Bush, it's a well known and documented fact that Bush (or Cheney--whoever is really in charge) completely dropped the ball in terms of anti-terrorism efforts prior to 9/11. Perhaps a completely ignored memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack the U.S." will jog your carefully selected memory.

No amount of incompetence by the Bush Administration, real or imagined, can relieve President Clinton of his burden. It still eats at him to this day. President Bush was inaugurated in January 2001...I will leave the math to you.

[Guest American Woman]

Rather than respond to the tired old 'Clinton had sex with a consenting adult' line of "thought" again, I'll concentrate on the present, and America's total disapproval with Bush et al (emphasis mine):

Americans yearn for change of direction: poll

Sixty percent of all Americans strongly want the country to change direction after nearly seven years of President George W. Bush's rule, according to a new opinion poll released late Sunday.

...only 24 percent of those surveyed think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a different political course."

And it's not just Democrats who feel that way:

"A new direction is wanted not only by Democrats, but also by three-quarters of Independents and even half of Republicans, according to the poll.

For the fourth consecutive month, President Bush's approval rating remains at a career low, The Post said.

Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove."

Sounds as if the next presidential election is going to be another close one, but for anyone who wants to win, they best take a different direction than Bush has been taking, so that's good news.

Edited November 6, 2007 by American Woman